\3 


REPORT 

ON 

CRIMINAL  ABORTION. 


By  HOMER  O.  HITCHCOCK,  M.  D., 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE 

STATE  BOARD  OE  HEALTH. 


[Reprinted  from  tlie  Fourth  Annual  Report  of  tlie  Michigan  State  Board  of  Health, 

for  the  year  1876.  ] 


(,tV.  ^ 

H 

REPORT  ON  CRIMINAL  ABORTION. 


BY  WHAT  MEANS  CAN  INFANTICIDE  BE  MORE  EFFECTUALLY  SUP- 
PRESSED, AND  DISEASE  AND  DEATHS  FROM  CRIMINAL 
ABORTION  PREVENTED? 


At  previous  meetings  of  this  board  certain  questions  in  regard  to  the  possi- 
ble suppression  of  criminal  abortion  were  presented  from  Dr.  J.  H.  Beech 
and  Dr.  John  P.  Stoddard,  which,  with  certain  letters  from  these  gentlemen, 
were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Legislation. 

The  following  are  the  questions  and  letters  thus  referred : 

QUESTION  FOR  THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  HEALTH. 


Can  any  legislation  reach  that  class  of  persons  who  teach  (and  lend  means  for) 
the  art  of  abortion?  Would  it  not  be  effective  for  a time  to  stir  up  the  people  by 
attempting  to  make  it  the  duty  of  coroners  to  hold  inquests  in  every  case  of  death  when 
there  exists  the  least  suspicion  of  such  cause  ? 

Respectfully  Yours, 


BEECH. 


Coldwater,  Mich.,  May  21, 1875. 


IColdwater,  Mich.,  Aug.  15,  1875. 
H.  B.  Baker,  M.  D.,  Lansing , Mich.,  Sec'y  Mich.  State  Board  of  Health : 

Sir  : — *************** 

In  regard  to  deaths  from  induced  abortion,  it  seems  to  me  that  if  the  law  made  it 
more  explicitly  the  duty  of  coroners  to  investigate  all  cases  of  death  in  which  rumor 
or  other  indices  of  suspicion  point  toward  such  cause,  a very  considerable  check 
upon  the  crime  might  be  effected.  It  might  be  made  an  especially  punishable  offence 
for  any  physician,  surgeon,  or  midwife  to  allow  the  burial  of  any  patient,  or  person, 
in  whose  death  said  practitioner  had  any  knowledge  or  suspicion  of  abortion  having 
occurred,  without  having  reported  the  same  to  an  acting  and  efficient  coroner  or 
prosecuting  attorney,  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  give  all  of  such  cases  a modest  but 
thorough  investigation.  Professional  persons  often  have  knowledge  which  they  in 
false  honor  believe  that  it  would  be  meddlesomeness  to  reveal,  but  which  they  would  not 
conceal  in  face  of  the  strongly  expressed  mandates  of  the  law.  Owing  to  the  delicate 
nature  of  the  inquest,  it  might  be  proper  that  a jury  for  such  an  investigation  should 
be  constituted  of  less  number  than  in  other  cases,  but  selected  with  greater  care, 
even  perhaps  requiring  the  certificate  of  a Judge  of  court,  or  a County  Clerk,  that 
each  is  a proper  person  to  sit  in  such  cause. 

If  the  principle  is  not  considered  radically  unjust  or  dangerous  (and  I do  not  see 
how  it  can  be),  it  would  be  advantageous  to  protect  the  informer  by  secrecy,  as  is 
partially  the  custom  of  grand  juries. 

The  name  of  the  informer  need  not  go  beyond  the  first  officer,  but  the  information 
of  the  criminal  courts,  by  any  person  that  he  or  she  had  made  a statement  of  such 
suspicions  to  any  person  qualified  to  act  as  a coroner,  should  be  sufficient  to  arraign 
such  officer  for  maladministration. 


56 


STATE  BOARD  OF  HEALTH— REPORT  OF  SECRETARY,  1876. 


I am  no  lawyer  and  have  conferred  with  none  in  regard  to  my  ideas  upon  this 
subject,  because  I believe  that  your  honorable  Board  can  bring  more  wisdom  and 
efficiency  to  bear  upon  the  question.  If  it  is  chimerical,  it  cannot  fail  to  meet 
deserved  oblivion  at  your  hands. 

* , * ***********  * * * 

Yours,  etc., 

J.  H.  BEECH,  M.  D. 

QUESTION  FOR  THE  STATE  BOARD  OF  HEALTH. 

Can  any  legislation  be  had,  or  any  legal  procedures  be  inaugurated,  whereby  the 
abortionist  may -be  convicted  and  adequately  punished,  and  the  secret  and  terribly 
prevalent  crime  of  abortion  be  diminished  in  society? 

Would  it  not  in  a great  measure  accomplish  this  desirable  end  if  every  death  of  a 
child  before  birth,— as  occurs  in  abortion, — should  be  considered  as  a sudden  and  un- 
known death,  and  that  it  be  made  the  duty  of  coroners  to  hold  inquests  in  every  such 
case  of  the  death  of  an  unborn  child,  sole  reference  being  had  to  the  death  of  the  child, 
and  not  to  the  condition  of  the  mother.  In  short,  hold  that  death  or  murder  before 
birth  is  as  much  death  or  murder  as  after  birth. 

Respectfully  yours, 

JOHN  P.  STODDARD,  M.  D. 

Albion,  Mich.,  Sept.,  1875. 


Albion,  Michigan,  Sept.  23, 1875. 
Henry  B.  Baker,  M.  D.,  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Health. 

My  Dear  Doctor: — I had  intended  to  have  written  long  ago  to  you  in  regard  to 
that  question  for  the  State  Board  of  Health,  but  press  of  business  and  ill  health  have 
hitherto  forbid.  Enclosed  you  will  find  the  same  as  I had  conceived  it.  The  more 
1 reflect  upon  it  the  more  do  I think  my  position  tenable,  especially  if  our  statute 
laws  concerning  abortion  could  be  so  amended  as  to  consider  the  person  or  persons 
who  bring  on  abortions,  no  matter  at  what  age  of  the  foetal  life,  as  guilty  of  murder. 
But  even  as  the  law  now  is,  if  medical  men  generally, — and  then  soon  the  public  would 
do  the  same, — would  consider  the  killing  of  a child  in  utero , at  any  age  of  the  same,  as 
much  a crime  as  they  would  after  birth,  then  there  would  at  once  be  seen  the  same 
propriety  in  calling  the  death  of  the  child  in  utero , as  occurs  in  abortion,  a sudden 
death,  and  also  the  same  propriety  in  calling  for  the  sitting  of  a coroner’s  jury  over 
the  same,  as  we  now  consider  in  a child  after  birth  who  is  found  suddenly  dead.  The 
matter  of  birth  I consider  to  be  only  one  stage  in  the  progressive  and  unfolding  life 
of  each  individual,  and  death  before  birth  or  after,  is  as  truly  death  in  the  one  case  as 
in  the  other.  The  time  is  the  shifting  element,  the  accident,  if  you  please,  while 
death  is  the  one  constant  and  main  fact,  which  time  cannot  eliminate,  and  should  not 
be  allowed  to  cover  up.  Thus  the  killing  of  the  child,  in  my  idea,  while  yet  unborn, 
is  as  much  murder  as  when  killed  in  the  mother’s  or  nurse’s  arms. 

To  my  mind  the  crime  of  taking  the  life  of  a child  while  yet  in  its  mother’s  bosom, 
while  yet  connected  to  her  and  developing  life  out  of  her  life,  while  yet  in  “ the  work- 
shop of  nature,”  has  a touch  of  greater  crime  and  heinousness  about  it  than  the  mur- 
der of  a person  at  mature  strength.  It  interferes  with  God’s  laws  more  nearly  at  the 
fountain;  it  is  a breach  of  the  confidence  imposed  upon  humanity ; it  is  a cowardly 
attack  upon  a life  left  wholly  and  implicitly  in  the  care  and  protection  of  another 
being.  I might  enlarge  upon  this  point,  but  I guess  you  see  my  point. 

I should  be  glad  to  hear  from  you  at  at  any  time, 

Truly  yours, 

JOHN  P.  STODDARD. 


H.  B.  Baker,  M.  D.,  Lansing , Michigan: 

Dear  Doctor: — Your  favor  of  yesterday  is  before  me  and  considered.  I cheerfully 
accept  the  plan  of  Dr.  Stoddard,  as  intimated  by  you,  in  reference  to  still-born  chil- 
dren when  the  mothers  are  or  have  been  living  with  husbands  within  the  u period  of 
incubation,”  but  in  other  cases  as  criminality  in  degree  must  have  been  incurred, 
the  supposition  would  be  strong  enough  to  fix  the  case  in  proper  line  for  legal 
investigation. 

* * * ***********  * * 


October  22, 1875. 


Truly  yours,  etc., 


J.  H.  BEECH, 
Coldwater,  Mich. 


CRIMINAL  ABORTION. 


57 


Among  all  the  nations  of  antiquity  there  has  prevailed  to  a greater  or  less 
extent  the  horrid  custom  of  exposing  new-born  children,  or  of  putting  to  death, 
not  only  the  new-born,  but  even  older,  children.  Sometimes  they  were  strang- 
led, sometimes  immolated,  sometimes  drowned  or  buried  alive,  and  sometimes 
thrown  to  wild  beasts  or  voracious  reptiles. 

These  innocent  victims  were  among  some  nations  sacrificed  to  their  gods,  in 
barbarous  but  religious  ceremony;  while  among  others  their  destruction  was 
required  by  law,  if,  upon  a legal  examination,  they  were  found  to  he  weak  or 
deformed  ; and  among  others  still  the  custom  was  encouraged  lest  the  popula- 
tion should  increase  too  rapidly.  “This  practice, ” says  Dr.  Beck,  “was  not 
upheld  merely  by  the  sanction  of  law,  it  was  defended  by  the  ablest  men  in 
Greece.  Aristotle,  in  his  work  on  government,  enjoins  the  exposure  of  children 
that  are  naturally  feeble  and  deformed,  in  order  to  prevent  an  excess  in  popu- 
lation.” He  adds  : “If  this  idea  be  repugnant  to  the  character  of  the  nation, 
fix  at  least  the  number  of  children  in  each  family,  and  if  the  parents  trans- 
gress the  law,  let  it  be  ordained,  that  the  mother  shall  destroy  the  fruit  of  her 
body  before  it  shall  have  received  the  principles  of  life  and  sensation.”  * 

This  custom  was  by  no  means  confined  to  the  low,  ignorant,  and  degraded 
nations,  but,  “when  the  Roman  empire  was  at  its  highest  pitch  of  grandeur, 
the  destruction  of  infant  life,  in  all  its  various  stages,  was  practiced  by  high 
and  low — rich  and  poor.  Abortion  was  perpetrated,  and  children  were  exposed, 
almost  without  censure — certainly  without  punishment.”  f 

The  Jews,  while  continuing  steadfast,  faithful  in  their  own  religion,  were 
free  from  these  crimes.  Indeed,  abortion  and  infanticide  were  not  forbidden, 
because  unknown  among  them.  J 

■%  But  when  they  became  idolatrous  through  their  intercourse  with  the  Philis- 
tines, even  the  Jews  offered  up  their  infant  children  in  sacrifice  to  Moloch,  and 
Tophet  was  made  horrid  by  these  practices.  But  to  the  pure  Jewish  religion,, 
as  well  as  to  real  Christianity,  infanticide  after,  as  well  as  before  birth,  was 
abhorrent.  Tertullian,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Beck,  says:  “Christians  now  are  so> 
far  from  homicide  that,  with  them,  it  is  utterly  unlawful  to  make  away  with  a 
child  in  the  womb,  when  nature  is  in  deliberation  about  the  man ; for  to  kill  a. 
child  before  it  is  born,  is  to  commit  murder  by  way  of  advance ; and  there  is 
no  difference  whether  you  destroy  a child  in  its  formation  or  after  it  is  formed 
and  delivered ; for  we  Christians  look  upon  him  as  a man  who  is  one  in 
embryo.” 

And  wherever  Christianity  has  been  introduced  among  modern  heathen 
nations,  infanticide  has  at  once  ceased  to  prevail  and  has  been  forbidden  under 
severe  penalties.  Abortion  too,  has  been,  and  is,  held  to  be  a crime  of  equal 
enormity  among  all  persons  who  have  really  learned  and  accepted  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  religion. 

But  notwithstanding  the  custom  of  exposing  or  killing  children  after  birth, 
for  any  cause,  has  fled  away  from  every  nation  before  the  advance  of  these  pure 
, and  benignant  principles,  and  the  act  is  now  considered  everywhere  under  the 
sway  of  Christianity  as  murder  the  most  heinous,  yet  there  still  remains  a 
shadow  of  the  false  philosophy  and  the  ignorance  of  the  laws  of  life,  which 
prevailed  among  the  ancients. 


* Beck’s  Medical  Jurisprudence,  Vol.  1,  p.  376. 
t Beck’s  Medical  Jurisprudence,  Vol.  1,  p.  379. 
$ Beck’s  Medical  Jurisprudence,  Vol.  1,  p.  372 


58 


STATE  BOARD  OF  HEALTH— REPORT  OF  SECRETARY,  1876. 


Many  a nominally  Christian  home  is  desecrated  by  child -murder,  by  abortion 
being  procured  in  the  early  months  of  pregnancy.  Many  a nominally  Christian 
mother,  who  would  be  horrified  by  even  the  thought  of  strangling  the  babe 
upon  her  breast,  and  would  refuse  to  produce  miscarriage  upon  herself  after  the 
fifth  month  of  pregnancy,  nevertheless  readily  consents  to  an  abortion  being 
produced  before  the  fourth  month,  and,  if  her  “conscience  is  not  wholly  void 
of  offense/’  yet  she  considers  the  act,  if  not  justifiable,  at  least  venial. 

Whence  comes  this  impression , if  not  conviction,  that  is  so  widely  spread 
among  even  Christian  people,  and  which  excuses,  if  not  justifies,  so  many  child 
murders  in  our  land,  and  which  furnishes  so  large  and  so  tempting  and  so  com- 
paratively safe  a field  for  so  many  devilish-minded  abortionists  to  labor  in? 

Does  it  not  come  directly  from  the  false  philosophy  and  the  ignorance  of  the 
true  laws  of  life  which  prevailed  among  the  ancients?  And  is  it  not  perpetu- 
ated and  justified  by  the  laws  even  of  Christian  lands  which  to  some  degree  were 
molded  by,  and  and  which  now  perpetuate  that  ignorance  and  false  philosophy 
of  the  ancients? 

In  discussing  the  question  when  the  foetus  is  to  be  considered  as  endowed  with 
life,  Dr.  Beck  says:  “In  reviewing  the  various  opinions  which  have  been 
advanced  oh  this  subject  at  different  periods,  it  will  abundantly  appear  that  too 
often  fancy  has  usurped  the  prerogative  of  reason,  and  idle  speculation  been 
substituted  in  the  place  of  rational  investigation.  The  consequence  has  been 
that  doctrines  have  been  promulgated,  not  only  the  most  erroneous  and  absurd 
in  their  nature,  but  the  most  dangerous  in  their  tendencies  to  the  best  interests 
of  society.”* 

“The  ancients  believed  that  the  sentient  and  vital  principle  was  not  infused 
into  the  foetus  until  some  time  after  conception  had  taken  place.”  “Accord- 
ing to  Hippocrates,  the  male  foetus  became  animated  at  thirty  days  after  con- 
ception; while  the  female  required  forty-two.”  “The  stoics  believed  that  the 
soul  was  not  united  to  the  body  before  the  act  of  respiration,  and  consequently 
that  the  foetus  was  inanimate  during  the  whole  period  of  utero-gestation. 
This  doctrine  prevailed  until  the  reign  of  Antoninus  and  Severus,  when  it  gave 
way  to  the  more  popular  sentiments  of  the  sect  of  the  Academy , who  main- 
tained that  the  foetus  become  animated  at  a certain  period  of  gestation.” 
This  erroneous  idea  crept  into  the  “canon  law  of  the  church  of  Kome,  which 
also  distinguished  between  the  animate  and  inanimate  foetus,”  in  their  punish- 
ments for  its  destruction.  “Galen  considered  the  animation  of  the  foetus  to 
take  place  on  the  fortieth  day  after  conception.”  “ Another  contended  that 
eighty  days  were  requisite  for  the  animation  of  the  female,  while  only  forty 
were  necessary  for  the  male.”  Others  again  made  a distinction  between  the  im- 
perfect embryo  and  the  perfectly  formed  foetus,  and  considered  abortion  of  the 
latter  only  as  a crime  deserving  the  same  punishment  as  homicide ; a distinc- 
tion of  which  it  is  justly  remarked  by  a celebrated  writer  on  medical  jurispru- 
dence, ‘ennemie  a la  morale  et  de  l’humanite  digne  de  l’ignorance  et  des  preju- 
ges  de  ses  auteurs.”  “All  the  foregoing  opinions,”  says  Dr.  Beck,  “wholly 
unsupported  either  by  argument  or  experiment,  might  be  dismissed  without  a 
comment,  were  it  not  to  point  out  the  evils  to  which  they  have  given  rise.  It 
may  be  said  of  them  with  perfect  truth  that  their  direct  tendency  has  been  to 
countenance,  rather  than  to  discourage  the  destruction  of  the  foetus,  at  least  in 


*Beck’s  Medical  Jurisprudence,  yol.  I,  p.  404  to  408. 


CRIMINAL  ABORTION. 


59 


the  earlier  months  of  pregnancy.  On  a subject  of  this  nature,  it  was  to  be 
supposed  that  legal  decisions  would  be  influenced  in  a great  measure  by  the 
opinions  of  philosophers  and  physiologists ; and  accordingly,  while  the  delu- 
sion of  the  stoics  continued  its  sway,  the  law  could  view  nothing  very  criminal 
in  wilful  abortion.” 

“In  times  more  modern,  an  error  no  less  absurd,  and  attended  with  conse- 
quences equally  injurious,  has  received  the  sanction,  not  merely  of  popular 
belief,  but  even  of  the  laws  of  many  civilized  countries.  The  error  consists  in 
denying  to  the  foetus  any  vitality  until  after  the  time  of  quickening.  The 
codes  of  almost  every  civilized  nation  have  this  principle  incorporated  into  them, 
and  accordingly,  the  punishment  which  they  denounce  against  abortion  pro- 
cured after  quickening,  is  much  severer  than  before.  The  English  law  ‘ consid- 
ers life  not  to  commence  before  the  infant  is  able  to  stir  in  its  mother’s  womb.’  ” 

Our  own  statutes  upon  this  subject  are  based  upon  the  English  law  and  are 
as  follows  : Compiled  Laws,  “ (7541.)  Sec.  32.  The  wilful  killing  of  an  unborn 
quick  child  by  any  injury  to  the  mother  of  such  child,  which  would  be  murder 
if  it  resulted  in  the  death  of  such  mother,  shall  be  deemed  manslaughter.” 

“(7542.)  Sec.  33.  Every  person  who  shall  administer  to  any  woman  preg- 
nant with  a quick  child,  any  medicine,  drug,  or  substance  whatever,  or  shall 
use  or  employ  any  instrument  or  other  means,  with  intent  thereby  to  destroy 
such  child,  unless  the  same  shall  have  been  necessary  to  preserve  the  life  of 
such  mother,  or  shall  have  been  advised  by  two  physicians  to  be  necessary  for 
such  purpose,  shall,  in  case  the  death  of  such  child  or  of  such  mother  be  there- 
by produced,  he  deemed  guilty  of  manslaughter.” 

“ (7543.)  Sec.  34.  Every  person  who  shall  wilfully  administer  to  a pregnant 
woman  any  medicine,  drug,  substance,  or  thing  whatever,  or  shall  employ  any 
instrument  or  other  means  whatever,  with  intent  thereby  to  procure  the  miscar- 
riage of  any  such  woman,  unless  the  same  shall  have  been  necessary  to  preserve 
the  life  of  such  woman,  or  shall  have  been  advised  by  two  physicians  to  be  nec- 
essary for  that  purpose,  shall,  upon  conviction,  be  punished  by  imprisonment 
in  a county  jail  not  more  than  one  year,  or  by  a fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred 
dollars,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  imprisonment.” 

“(7544.)  Sec.  35.  In  case  of  prosecution  under  sections  thirty-three  and 
thirty -four  of  this  chapter,  it  shall  not  be  necessary  for  the  prosecution  to  prove 
that  no  such  necessity  existed,  or  that  the  advice  of  two  pliysieians  was  not 
given.” 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  statutes  recognize  and  give  a semblance  of  authority 
to  a distinction  wholly  unfounded  in  physiology,  irreconcilable  with  the  princi- 
ples of  philosophy,  and  which  leads  to  acts  abhorrent  to  the  principles  and  pure 
sentiment  of  Christianity.  “Indeed,”  says  Dr.  Beck,  “no  other  doctrine 
appears  to  be  consonant  with  reason  or  physiology,  but  that  which  admits  the 
embryo  to  possess  vitality  from  the  very  moment  of  conception.  If  physiology 
and  reason  justify  the  position  just  laid  down,  we  must  consider  those  laws 
which  exempt  from  punishment,  in  any  degree,  the  crime  of  producing  abortion 
at  an  early  period  of  gestation,  as  immoral  and  unjust.  They  tempt  to  the  per- 
petration of  the  same  crime  at  one  time,  which  at  another  they  punish  with 
death. 

“In  the  language  of  the  admirable  Percival,  ‘to  extinguish  the  first  spark  of 
life  is  a crime,  of  the  same  nature,  both  against  our  Maker  and  society,  as  to 


60 


STATE  BOARD  OF  HEALTH— REPORT  OF  SECRETARY,  1876. 


destroy  an  infant,  a child,  or  a man : these  regular  and  successive  stages  of 
existence  being  the  ordinances  of  God,  subject  alone  to  his  divine  will,  and 
appointed  by  sovereign  wisdom  and  goodness,  as  the  exclusive  means  of  pre- 
serving the  race,  and  multiplying  the  enjoyments  of  mankind.’ 99 

It  is  well  known  that  under  these  laws  abortions  are  frequently  produced,  and 
in  many  communities  are  winked  at  as  no  more  than  peccadillos,  and  by  some 
persons  really  defended  and  encouraged.  There  are  also  a set  of  persons,  male 
and  female,  who  make  a secret  trade  of  this  business,  and  do  these  deeds  of 
blood  and  murder  for  paltry  gold  or  dirty  “rags,”  and  who  almost  always  go 
undetected  or  at  least  unpunished.  This  sentiment  has  settled  down,  in 
many  communities,  as  a kind  of  mildew  upon  all  grades  of  society. 

Such  is  the  condition  of  society  and  such  the  status  of  this  crime,  which 
have  prompted  from  two  able  physicians  of  this  State  the  questions  presented, 
and  the  letters  addressed  to  this  board. 

The  intelligent  moral  sense  of  a people  is  to  be  at  once  the  basis  and  the  mea- 
sure of  its  legislation,  upon  moral  subjects. 

If  the  code  of  laws  are  much  in  advance  of  the  intelligent  moral  sense  of  the 
people,  the  laws  fail  to  be  executed  and  soon  become  a dead  letter.  If  the  code 
of  laws  are  much  below  the  moral  sense  of  the  more  enlightened  portion  of  the 
• people,  there  is  a tendency  to  dull  the  moral  sense  and  to  lose  sight  of  nice 
moral  distinctions. 

Now  should  we  gain  anything  by  the  enactment  of  such  a law  as  is  sug- 
gested in  the  question  and  letters  at  the  head  of  this  article  ? 

It  appears  to  me  somewhat  questionable,  and  for  the  following  reasons : 

1st.  Laws  which  aim  to  secure  their  ends  by  difficult  or  doubtful  means,  are 
apt  to  be  of  partial  or  questionable  utility,  or  entirely  nugatory. 

There  are  many  cases  of  abortion  purely  accidental.  So  are  many  deaths 
of  adults  accidental.  Coroners  inquests  are  very  properly  held  in  the  latter 
cases,  but  I am  sure  coroners  inquests  in  the  former  cases  would  be  repugnant 
to  public  sentiment. 

2d.  Most  persons  on  whom  abortion  is  procured  are  known  only  to  themselves 
or  their  husbands  to  be  pregnant.  The  deed  is  wholly  concealed  as  is  the  body 
of  the  murdered  foetus. 

3d.  If  the  deed  were  known  to  have  occurred,  and  the  body  of  the  foetus  were 
really  brought  under  a coroner’s  inquest,  it  would  be  exceedingly  difficult,  if  not 
quite  impossible  by  inspection,  to  determine  whether  the  death  occurred  from 
accident,  or  other  natural  causes.  What  signs  would  be  depended  upon  by  a 
coroner  to  show  that  a foetus — dead  in  an  early  month  of  its  existence — over 
which  he  was  holding  an  inquest,  had  lost  its  life  by  fell  design,  or  by  an  un- 
fortunate accident,  or  a diseased  womb  which  refused  to  house  it  longer? 

4th.  The  law  suggested  specifies  that  in  the  coroner’s  inquest  “sole  reference 
should  be  had  to  the  condition  of  the  child,  and  not  of  the  mother,”  while  often, 
in  the  body  of  the  mother,  if  it  could  be  searched,  would  be  found  the  surest, 
if  not  the  only  evidences  of  guilt,  at  least  by  instrumental  interference. 

The  terms  “quickening,”  “quicken,”  “quick  with  child,”  and  “quick 
child,”  that  have  been  bequeathed  to  our  laws  by  the  old  English  law,  incon- 
sistent as  they  are  with  reason  and  the  true  principles  of  physiology,  have 
brought  with  them  and  made  prevalent  some  of  the  most  erroneous  and  unfor- 
tunate ideas.  There  is  very  generally  current  among  the  people  the  notion 


CRIMINAL  ABORTION. 


61 


that  before  a pregnant  woman  “quickens,”  i.  e.  before  the  fourth  month  of 
pregnancy,  there  is  no  real  life  in  the  foetus,  or  at  least  that  it  is  not  a “living 
soul,”  and  that  to  destroy  it  is  no  real  crime.  Many  people,  otherwise  of  good 
intelligence  appear  to  be  entirely  ignorant  of  the  first  principles  of  embryonic 
life,  or  else  smothering  tlicir  consciences  for  the  time  by  the  vapors  of  an  in- 
tense selfishness,  make  themselves  believe  a lie. 

Physicians,  too,  are  not  wanting  who  really  believe  this  old  error,  or  at  least 
do  nothing  towards  removing  it  from  the  minds  of  their  patrons,  and  in  many 
instances,  it  is  to  be  feared,  too  easily  excuse  themselves  for  being  particeps 
criminis  in  this  work  of  real  child-murder. 

I claim  that  our  laws  on  this  subject , — not  up  to  the  intelligence  of  educated 
people , and  not  in  consonance  with  reason  and  the  laws  of  physiology, — are 
justly  chargeable  with  the  general  diffusion  of  this  dangerous  sentiment,  and  the 
general  obtusion  of  the  public  conscience  as  to  moral  distinctions  on  this  subject. 

Do  not  the  phraseology  of  our  laws,  and  the  distinctions  made  by  them  in 
the  procuring  of  abortion,  before  or  after  quickening,  tend  to  confuse  the  public 
intelligence,  and  to  lower  the  tone  of  the  public  conscience,  and  thus  to  foster 
the  prevalence  of  abortion  in  the  early  months  of  pregnancy? 

Through  this  Board,  I would  respectfully  call  the  attention  of  jurists  and  the 
law-making  power  of  this  State  to  these  considerations,  and  ask  if  this  phrase- 
ology of  our  laws  should  not  at  once  be  changed  so  as  to  make  it  entirely  in  con- 
formity with  the  principles  of  reason,  and  the  laics  of  physiology. 

This  change  in  the  phraseology  will  of  necessity  carry  with  it  the  discontinu- 
ance of  the  distinction  in  the  penalties  for  abortion  procured  or  attempted 
before  or  after  quickening.  I am  sure  that  our  laws  thus  amended  would  be 
approved  by  the  intelligence  of  our  people,  and  would  be  a great  awakener  of 
their  consciences,  and  would  do  much  towards  decreasing  the  number  of  abor- 
tions in  the  early  months  of  pregnancy. 

I am  sure  that  what  the  people  in  Michigan  as  well  as  in  other  States,  need  . in 
many  fields  of  legislation,  is,  not  so  much  new  and  more  explicit  and  compre- 
hensive laws,  as  the  general  diffusion  of  real  practical  knowledge  upon  such 
subjects,  and  especially  the  quickening  and  arousing  the  conscience  already 
intelligent. 

It  is  right  here  that  much  good  can  be  done  by  physicians  and  by  all  hyqienists 
in  giving  prevalence  to  the  truth,  that  at  the  very  moment  of  conception  life  begins 
in  the  foetus,  and  that  no  other  time  can  be  named  so  reasonable  when  the  human 
foetus  becomes  a living  soul ; and  that  to  destroy  it  at  any  time  before  birth  is  as 
much  murder  as  at  any  time  after  birth. 

That  the  consciences  of  the  people  be  aroused  upon  this  subject  is  quite  as 
much  a necessity  as  that  the  people  be  informed  upon  it.  The  reality  and  enor- 
mity of  the  crime  need  in  every  suitable  way  to  be  pointed  out,  and  made  pun- 
gent by  explicit  law  and  condign  punishment. 

It  is  true  that  at  present  abortion,  especially  in  the  early  months  of  preg- 
nancy is  far  too  prevalent,  and  that  far  too  few  of  those  who  engage  in  it  are 
brought  to  punishment. 

The  fact  that  abortionists  do  their  deeds  mostly  in  darkness,  explains  in  some 
degree  why  so  few  of  them  are  brought  to  punishment.  But  how  many  whose 
guilt  has  been  proven  beyond  a question,  have  escaped  merited  punishment  by 
the  disagreement  of  a jury, — a disagreement  accounted  for  by  the  want  of  real 


62 


STATE  BOARD  OF  HEALTH-REPORT  OF  SECRETARY,  1876. 


intelligence,  in  some  of  the  jury,  of  the  true  laws  of  life  in  the  foetus,  or  the 
demoralized  consciences  of  others  who  had  perhaps  availed  themselves  of  such 
services  in  the  desecration  of  their  own  homes  ? 

Our  laws  upon  this  matter,  changed  as  I have  suggested,  would  threaten 
condign  punishment  to  this  crime  whenever  committed,  would  tend  to  give 
intelligence  to  jurors  now  ignorant  of  the  true  laws  of  foetal  life,  and  would, 
I am  sure,  be  the  strongest  and  most  natural  barrier  to  the  commission  of  this 
crime. 

Kalamazoo,  August  1st,  1876. 


